(a) To determine if there is a legally binding contract between Couch Taters (CT) and King Korn (KK), it is important to establish the offer and acceptance of this business transaction to accurately evaluate its existence and extent. To do so would require a chronological analysis of the exchanges between both parties.
The first exchange between Homer (H) of CT and KK has KK quoting a price and H acknowledging it but requiring his superior’s approval. To establish a legally binding contract, we would need first for an offer to be made. However, it can be interpreted that KK’s quotation of price was merely a provision of information, not a direct offer for purchase as was corroborated by Haley v Facey.
In response, H agreed that it was a fair price and responded “it’s a deal” which could be construed as an offer. However, it must be discussed whether or not this could be seen as a formal offer. Since H had inserted the caveat that he would need his “director to sign off on that”, it can be seen that the offer does not stand until he has received approval. As such, it cannot count as a formal offer.
In their next exchange, H asks for a price reduction and is rebuffed and subsequently given an offer for $0.53 per kg by KK. This can be …show more content…
When the extra terms are introduced in the form of the Standard Terms for CT as well as the Contract Note on the part of Lonstroff, both parties did not acknowledge the new terms by counter-signing as requested. As held by the court, Lonstroff’s silence in the matter with regards to the Contract Note was tantamount to assent towards the terms set out by R1 in the Contract Note. Similarly, with this precedent set, KK can push that CT’s silence towards the inclusion of the Standard terms in the first four exchanges amounted to assent towards the inclusion of the Standard